[tie_]

Well, the UBI money you get would be used to buy something that someone else has produced (an iPhone, a piece of bread, a bottle of wine, etc.). In this sense, the UBI that you are getting represents _goods_ that _someone else_ is producing (and "donating" into the system in the form of taxes). I find this easier to reason about when you take the concept of "money" out of the equation.

So,oOption A is that you "donate" more goods into the system than the UBI you are consuming, which is all fine and dandy for the rest of us. Option B is that you are consuming more value that you are donating, which is less fun for the rest.

So, some people will need to overproduce in order for the people who under-produce to get their UBI worth of goods. Mind you, this isn't different than the current state of affairs. The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group?

[dragonwriter]

> The big question for me is how would the introduction of UBI ultimately affect that ratio, given that you would be less disincentivized to stay with the underproducing group?

The “given” is backwards. Compared to existing means-tested welfare systems, UBI funded by additional high-end taxes provides less disincentive to move out of the underproducing group.

If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group.

[tie_]

> If the minimum support level provided by UBI is used (in whole or in part) to offset and reduce minimum wage, it also reduces the barriers to people moving immediately to a less-inderprodicing level, and eventually up and out of the underproducing group.

You can get rid of minimal wage with or without UBI. In fact Germany just recently introduced minimum wage - there was none before. The lack of it was clearly not regarded as boon to the society. The barrier effect is minimal, if any.

[zhoujianfu]

I agree this is already the state of affairs.. some people generate more goods/services/value than they consume (and build wealth), others do not.

I think everything would still work out fine with a UBI because we’d still have the most market forces at play (compared to all other social welfare/safety net/redistribution schemes). If it turns out the UBI is too high, the people who produce will have to raise prices for goods to find equilibrium again. If it’s not, prices will stay the same (or drop). Overall though, it’s the most efficient way to make sure nobody starves, even those who for some reason or other just can’t compete in the future economy.

I think once we have a UBI people will look back to the days before it like we look back at the hunter-gatherer days today, “I can’t believe in the early 21st century everybody HAD to work, just to survive!”